Graphite India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2016 (8) TMI 193 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Cenvat Credit - GTA services - outward transportation - upto the place of removal – appellant failed to submit documentary evidence that freight charges are the integral part of the price of the goods – Held that:– appellant to produce all relevant documents and will get opportunity to be heard - impugned order set aside – remand of both appeal to original adjudicating authority.
- E/28092 & E/28094/2013-SM - Final Order Nos. 20605-20606/ 2016 - Dated:- 3-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial M .....

e dutiable and the appellants pay the duty regularly and avail the benefit of credit on certain services as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. On scrutiny of the records for the period September 2009 to December 2010, it appeared that the appellants have wrongly availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation and freight charges in respect of transportation of finished goods from the factory gate to the consumer premises. On these allegations the show-caus .....

before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his impugned order-in-appeal dated 31.07.2013 upheld the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 the appellant has filed the present appeals. 2. Learned CA submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and various judgments rendered by the higher judicial forum. He further submitted that before the lower authorities, appellants submitted all the relevant documents showing that all .....

buyer to prove that the seller is the owner of the goods beyond the factory gate and also upto the place of buyer. He further held that appellant has failed to show categorically that freight charges were integral part of the price of the goods delivered at customer s premises. Hence place of removal is the factory gate in this case. In the same para the learned Commissioner has observed as under: 9. Further I find in findings from para 10 to 11.6 of the orders-in-original the original authority .....

not produced any proof either before the original authority or before me, I am inclined to arrive at a decision that the appellants have taken such credit in violation of the conditions of the Board s circular mentioned supra. The original authority is right in disallowing/demanding the credit availed with interest and penalty. 2.2. He also submitted that in the appellant s own case vide order dated 10.03.2016 Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I has allowed the cenvat credit .....